Have you checked the hygiene rating of your Christmas meal?

I am very impressed by John’s plan to speak to a restaurant owner regarding their Food Hygiene Rating. I hope you are reassured and have an enjoyable meal. 🙂

I did contact the Food Standards Agency when I spotted that a restaurant was displaying a higher rating than they were entitled to, and was asked to contact the relevant council. I would have done so if it was my local council, but decided to ask FSA to take care of it. FSA arranged for a council representative to visit the premises and the window display was corrected promptly, but the website was not changed for several months due to some difficulty in getting this done. At one time I was keen on premises owners putting their Food Hygiene Ratings on their websites but now realise that it is better to check the FSA website.

I am impressed too, having had a good look at the detailed Norwich reports and I wish that my council and others would publish details of inspections. I am not convinced about the Norwich inspectors’ apparent obsession with antibacterial spray, since there is a temptation to use that as a substitute for proper cleaning. I don’t want my food contaminated with the stuff, thank-you.

I agree. Too many eating houses and hotels think a squirt from a bottle will make everything clean. The spray emerging from the atomiser goes all over the place and, unfortunately, it has become a substitute for proper cleansing. Changing the tablecloths after every customer is my preferred procedure but that is expensive and not in keeping with the fashion for bare tabletops [it goes with the primitive concept of eating off a piece of driftwood with chips in a little tin bucket].

Ian – I agree that most bugs are destroyed by thorough cooking. However, everyone should be aware that food that has been stored for too long or incorrectly can contain heat-stable toxins from bacteria such as staphylococci and Bacillus cereus, These survive temperatures above boiling.

That’s true. My main point, however, was that although you’re far less likely to get poisoned through toxicity if the procedures are followed (which is why I said things were better now) you’re just as likely to fall foul of something nasty presented without your knowing about it, which is why I favour Mystery dining and more frequent inspections. The FH scores do a little but they’re nowhere near enough and the structure is – I believe – flawed.

There is a restaurant I know which has consistently gained the highest ratings, yet which allows cats and dogs to roam the kitchens during service. I like animals, but not where my food is being prepared. I simply think we need a new approach.

Comments on previous Conversations on this topic have shown that many local authorities are not undertaking enough food safety inspections and do not have enough resources to do much more than a perfunctory minimum. People have said how reporting infractions to the public health department has not been worth while – it’s only when there is an outbreak of food poisoning that additional enforcement action is taken. Personally I would report something like cats and dogs in the kitchen; perhaps i have been lucky enough to live in places where the public health issues have been taken seriously and reports have led to timely follow-up action. Overall I think the expectations of the food hygien rating system greatly exceed the actuality but, as Ian has said, it is better than nothing and has led to an uplift in standards. Generally I feel that the regime is too focussed on giving a balanced report and will not hit hard enough where there is a serious safety or health risk. To issue a rating of 1 in June and not to have reinspected by December to see what remedial action has been taken, in my view, is not good enough. At what point with a score of 1 does enforcement action actually occur I wonder? It seems to me that an establsihment can stroll along on a score of 1 for as long as it likes, and if there is no requirement to put the scores on the doors than as like as not they will get away with it indefinitely.

Thanks for all your comments Ian. As an insider your insights are much valued.

I have seen a TV programme on Health Inspectors and covering this aspect and I can easily see the tick-box format and mentality. I have absolutely no doubt that it does have a beneficial effect but also believe that it is not, and cannot be, a guaranteethat there will never be an incident.

Perhaps it would be fairer to the public to be upfront that the system is actually working to measure minimum acceptable standards. And that re-views of the lowest scoring is apparently not a matter of urgency.

What I also find interesting is that places that score 5 stars are not then revisited for 18 months. But to be effective, these inspections should be completely random.

I assume that Ian is referring to unannounced inspections, which I very much support. It’s fairly obvious that most catering establishments will make sure they are well prepared for planned inspections.

Ian has raised the interesting point that the ‘statutory’ food hygiene inspections have to follow, for the most part, a systematic process through a standardised script that demonstrates to a supervising officer that certain required observations have been conducted and evidence has been recorded with information or recommendations issued as appropriate. The inspectors will look for conformity or contravention in likely places and they might notice non-compliance in other places. What they will rarely see is the actual performance during service in the evenings or at weekends when a busy restaurant might be under a mild state of chaos, where casual [under-trained and under-experienced] staff are operating at full stretch, and where the maintenance of high standards is bound to suffer. It might be a good idea if the local authorities with food hygiene responsibilities engaged with the population at large and encouraged customers to send in reports on eat-in or take-away premises they have visited. I would prefer to submit a report to the council’s food safety team for them to take appropriate professional follow-up action than to put something on TripAdvisor. The biggest problem I can foresee with this idea is that neither I nor anyone I know would be seen dead at many of the places that require more active attention [largely for fear that we would be . . .]; the remaining customers are probably not in a fit state to put anything coherent on a piece of paper and present it to the authorities.